Has it really come to this – taxing junk food to decrease consumption of artificial, processed crap and get Americans to eat better? Will a tax on junk food actually decrease all the extra weight America is carrying around, or just tick people off?
Little by little the government is regulating what we eat – or at least trying to. Is it warranted? Well, with 2/3 of Americans overweight or obese, some think government interference might be the only way to make a difference. Public health advocates are pushing cities and states to tax fattening, non-nutrious foods like soda and donuts. Opponents say Americans should have the right to eat what they want, and should not have to pay more for their poor food choices. They also believe it would cost too much for poor people, who often don’t have the option of eating healthy.
The annual health care cost of obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has soared to over $100 billion. The government pays a good chunk of that. So if the government is footing the bill, does that mean they have more of a right to make regulations to decrease obesity costs?
Some industry experts think soda and junk food should be taxed just as another poor health choice is – cigarette smoking. Cigarettes are taxed very highly in some states, sometimes costing over $10, and tobacco companies are also forced to contribute money to anti-smoking campaigns. More than half of all Americans who once smoked have quit and smoking rates are about half of what they were in the 1960s. A healthier America thanks to taxes?
If American’s unhealthy diet of processed food high in sugar, fat, and preservatives can also lead to chronic disease and illness (diabetes, heart disease, and/or obesity), it seems plausible to treat this unhealthy habit the same way we have with smoking.
But what kind of results can we expect to see from a tax on junk food? Can we expect Americans to “quit” junk food?
According to New York Times food-columnist Mark Bittman, “taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit, making it more affordable for poor people.” Sweetened drinks could be taxed at 2 cents an ounce, so a six-pack of soda would cost $1.44 more than it does now.
Bittman also states that we currently subsidize soda and other unhealthful food – with tax dollars! That means farmers get direct subsidies for crops like corn to make high-fructose corn syrup, which keeps the price of producing sugary food super cheap. That needs to be reversed, and if it is, if we tax the junk and subsidize the healthy, what kind of benefits would we see?
According to Bittman:
One study suggests that a national penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would generate at least $13 billion a year in income while cutting consumption by 24 percent.
A 20 percent increase in the price of sugary drinks nationally could result in about a 20 percent decrease in consumption, which in the next decade could prevent 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 cases of diabetes, saving about $30 billion.
Bittman makes a good point: it’s not just about taxing non-nutritious foods. We have to eat to survive, and if we don’t subsidize healthy food at the same time, it will become too expensive to eat! Healthy food, including produce and whole grains, would be much more affordable for everyone if subsidized, which is something I think we all would like.
Putting a tax on junk food may not seem like the “American way” to everyone, but those few extra dollars here and there can make a big difference in health care costs for everyone down the line. Perhaps the foods we are suppose to eat everyday for optimum health, like produce and whole grains, should be more affordable than the soda and sweets we are suppose to consume in moderation? It’s something to think about.
